Suppr超能文献

解剖病理学中的患者安全:测量差异频率及原因。

Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes.

作者信息

Raab Stephen S, Nakhleh Raouf E, Ruby Stephen G

机构信息

Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa 15232, USA.

出版信息

Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005 Apr;129(4):459-66. doi: 10.5858/2005-129-459-PSIAPM.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies.

DESIGN

Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post-sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report.

RESULTS

The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care.Conclusions.-This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.

摘要

背景

解剖病理学差异的频率尚未得到严格研究。

目的

确定解剖病理学差异的频率及其原因。

设计

美国病理学家学会Q-Probes项目的参与者通过前瞻性地对100份手术病理学或细胞学标本进行二次审查(签出后),自行报告其实验室中解剖病理学差异的数量。二次审查的原因包括会议、外部审查、内部质量保证政策和医生要求。

参与者

74个实验室自行报告数据。

主要观察指标

解剖病理学差异的频率;差异类型(即切缘状态改变、诊断改变、患者信息改变或排版错误);差异对患者结局的影响(即无伤害、险些失误或伤害);以及报告的清晰度。

结果

各实验室差异频率的均值和中位数分别为6.7%和5.1%。所有差异中有48%是由于同一解释类别内的改变(例如,一种肿瘤类型被改为另一种肿瘤类型)。所有差异中有21%是由于不同解释类别间的改变(例如,良性诊断被改为恶性诊断)。尽管大多数差异对患者护理没有影响,但5.3%的差异对患者护理有中度或显著影响。

结论

本研究确定了平均多机构差异频率(与二次审查相关)为6.7%。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验